Louis Vuitton are not happy about bag cakes! - Page 6

So, here's my next question--no making any "Jeep" car cakes then huh? No making any 'FedEx' jets. No making any 'Spalding" pianos. It's all gotta be generic.

A cake is not a purse nor a car nor a jet nor a piano. They are comic, they are for enjoyment. You can't carry your wallet in your cake purse, you can't fly off in your FedEx jet, you can't drive away in your car cake, you can't play Brahms on your spinette, but because a purse can literally be the same size as the potential cake...

Y'know, cakes forever have represented us. Represented our hopes and dreams and ambitions and different things we love. But God forbid and the courts lock us up and throw away the key if we make a Mustang convertible to slice and serve and eat!.

So what about Andy Warhol, did he get in trouble with Campbell???

So to answer my own question from
http://painting.about.com/od/arthistorytrivia/ig/Gallery-of-Famous-Paintings/Warhol-Soup-Cans.htm

I think the issue LV have with the copyright is that you are making money based on their brand. If you made the exact same bag but covered it in Walmart logos would the customer still want it? It is the association with LV that the customer is paying for. If you make the cake for your personal use and aren't making any money off it, they aren't concerned. It is probably too costly for companies to pursue all copyright infringements. I think that those books that have all the character cakes would have paid royalties to use them.

Also, if I remember correctly, Campbell initially was very hestitate/angry about Warhol using it, but then sales went through the roof! So they gave him the license.

Now, I know someone will chime in and say - see, free publicity! Well, sorry to break it to everyone, but we are not Andy Warhol. Warhol is an icon and his Campbell soup painting is now iconic. It's the same as when Duff gets permission to do some copyrighted cake (the Southwest jet, Campbell soup cake, etc...). He has been given the licensed to do it.

Licensing is tact so as to protect one's work and the quality of that image/work.

So yes, k8, it would be my understanding that planes, trains and automobiles would also be nixed - WHEN you are doing the copyrighted image/logo.

(I'm at work now, so I don't have my Mass Media Law book with me - but if you really want to know you can PM me and I'll check it out when I get home later.)

Looks like LV would be flattered, and look at it as free publicity and advertisement as well...I cant imagine owning a product line that people are so interested in and fasinated over that they would have their celebration cakes made to mimic it...WOW! How awesome would that be?!

You took the words right out of my mouth. Just think about all the cakes with, things that are copied using your edible printer etc. I did a cake with a U.S. passport, I guess I am in deep sh**!!!!! I really find it a big stretch to think that these companies are going to come after all of us cakebakers out here for copyright infringement. Maybe if these bigger cake companies post a LV cake or whatever, they could put a direct link to the LV site and maybe help them with sales!! Free Advertising!!

Last year Neiman Marcus was offering several trademarked handbag cakes in their gift section; a Gucci, Prada, LV, Chanel, and a Chloe. Just out of curiosity I checked them out, and now they only have 2 "designer satchels"; a zebra striped and a brown 'sassy' satchel. Nothing with a trademark.

Anything with a trademark cannot be reproduced with money exchanged. Before you could copy so many images at home, photolabs were very strict about not copying the work of another photographer and bakeries were very strict about not duplicating copyrighted material on an edible image. But now we live in the age of scanners, home printers, etc., and we seem to have forgotten that these laws do apply. Because of that I would never have thought for a moment that I could sell an image that belongs to someone else, whether it be that of a sportscar, an NFL team, or a handbag.

But I also drive the speed limit.

At least with cake all the evidence gets eaten! hahaha!!!!

You're wrong, you could put an aircraft carrier through this arguement.

It doesn't matter what medium you copy a company's copyrighted material to make for sale, you are still making a profit off their image.

If Mattel wants to make a Barbie that comes with a LV purse they would still have to get permission even though you couldn't use that piece of plastic for a purse.

You can obviously make all the purse cakes you want but they can't look like a LV purse. If you try to change just a little bit of a logo and it still is something most people would look at and say "oh, she made a LV cake" it's illegal.

No yeah, but copyright stuff was not that big a dieal like it is now like the article said. Remember Warhol painted those. Nowadays we just photocopy money and go spend it practically.

Plus back then, you would rarely see logos on something where they were noticeable. Obvious logos were rarely displayed (I'm talking clothing) Nowadays the logo is the reason some of us buy that garment. Different world, different mindset back then too.




No yeah, I'm cool. I get the laws--I have my own well thought out careful interpretation of them as well--just like ya'll do. I've done Louie's in the past for friends and for charity but I'm gonna ultimately request permission someday and see how that cookie crumbles for going forward. And/or ask my client to request permission and submit it to me on company letterhead.

Otherwise I will use the client's initials for the purse 'logo'.

I think I would be ok here--if you disagree that's fine. Because even if the prosecuting attorney could hold up a designer purse cake that could be recognizable as such by anyone in the court, then my attorney (if it ever got that far) could hold up legions of similarly styled purses that also from a distance look like Louie's or Coach's that are indeed perfectly legal and have a different design to the logo but are so similar you have to look at them up close to distinguish.

They are legion.

And if those other real purses are not legal, then Louie and Coach will need to prosecute each and every one of those as well in order to maintain that their image is indeed exclusively held and not public domain. A daunting task to say the least.

So it's like the Leprechaun that had to show the guy where the pot of gold was at. And he made him tie a yellow ribbon around the tree to mark the spot. The guy returns the next day to claim the pot and all the trees had the ribbon tied around them.

I'm doing derivative art. You then eat the art. I would not set up a company and mass produce FedEx style plane cakes or designer purse cakes. But there's a place in our culture for people like me to produce our art. No, not to steal but to imitate in a playful way -to parody.

It's fine to disagree with me--to each their own. I realize fully that if I reproduce a Mickey I'm toast--would never do that nowadays. Purses, however and planes and pianos, different story, non-mickey mice included. It's still my country--they can't take that away.

Me making a couple edible purse cakes this year with the client's initials for the logo--this will not infringe upon Louie's ability to make purse cakes and sell them. Does not ding his pocketbook (ha)

If I make a dummy cake of a the same--then I think that would be crossing the fagile line because it will not be eaten and disappear.

Me making 'edible art' is ok to me. It is a parody of life. We don't eat our pianos, we don't practice scales on marzipan keyboards. That's what we love about doing cakes. We parody the lives of our clients in sugar, yes?

Everything we do is derivative of something that came before us. I mean you put your right foot in you put your left foot in, you shake it all around, you do the hokey pokey and that's what it's all about.

Don't you think that's just the economy right now?

In other words,

Who has got the copyright on purse cakes with initials allll over them?

Hmmm???

"Yah getting me, camera-guy???!!!"
(line from the Shamwow commercial)


(I can be succinct--I just have to blather a lot first )

The law is the law. Copyright laws exist to protect an individual's work/company brand. That is how it works here. But even aside from laws and such, it boils down to principle and respect. Respecting someone art/brand/etc. Am I 100% innocent? No. Am I proud that I've made trademark cakes in the past for profit? No entirely (They came out cool - so I'm proud about that , but not about infringing on a copyright. These companies/people work hard to create a brand we we should respect that. Yes, they makes millions of dollars, but it's their millions of dollars and their right to control the brand they created.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now! (Why is it that even though it's Friday my co-workers have already gotten on my nerves??? )

edited: k8 - you know I love you! It's all good. Like I said, I know I'm no model law-abiding citizen, but like you I know I would have consequences to face. Half the reason I'm all worked up is b/c freakin' co-workers have been annoying me ALL week long! urrgh! The other half is b/c I LOVE mass media law!!! It's all love - it's all good!!!

#1. The only law is the law of public opinion. Yeah huh.

I have rights too.

I also drive the speed limit, Ziggs.
You never have to slow down when you see the cops.

Actually these encroaching copyright laws such as we have today are because Disney wanted to keep an iron grip on their sh*t. It was a different world a coupla decades ago. See #1 up there.